Missing EXIF Data

[Iguanasan]

I notice that many, many images both here and on the web in general have the EXIF data stripped out of them. I'm wondering how many of you are doing that on purpose and how many are doing it because it's a side-effect or a default setting of their editing tools?

As I've mentioned before I use Picasa 3 for image management and ufRAW/Gimp for editing (all freeware) and the default settings do not strip the EXIF data and I intentionally leave it in for anyone who's interested.

How about you?

[Geepaa]

I like being able to see what equipment and settings other people are using. I look at them as a way to learn from others. I use LR3 and have never bothered to or even thought about how to not include the EXIF data.

I think some of it may have to do with linking pics from flickr. Looking at Isa Luna's "Afternoon in the Park" set here in Animals, there is no EXIF data. But looking at them in flickr the EXIF data is there.
The same thing with Bambi's hummingbirds pics.

[Bambi]

I don't strip my exif data. it was a little weird a while ago but I think that was the result of using a Topaz plug in. I think it's been corrected.

[AntZ]

Mine is there in all its glory.

[Richard]

Guilty! I'll try and remember to include my exif for you guys in the future.

I usually strip the info out the image apart from copyright info as part of my export process.

[Iguanasan]

Guilty! I'll try and remember to include my exif for you guys in the future.

I usually strip the info out the image apart from copyright info as part of my export process.

That's what I'm trying to understand. Why do you strip it out at all? Leaving it in for the forum is nice and all but why hide it in the first place?

[Richard]

That's what I'm trying to understand. Why do you strip it out at all? Leaving it in for the forum is nice and all but why hide it in the first place?

With me it stems from when I take photos for work. Once I hand them to a the marketing department, they are passed on to dealers around the globe, I have no idea where they might end up. For example, if they end up on a corporate website I think it looks more professional to have the exif stripped out. Because I got in to a habit of doing this at work, I ended up doing it for my own photos as well with out giving it much thought.

[QuietOne]

I don't see any reason to strip it. There isn't anything there that's unusual, and I don't have anything that provides GPS coordinates (the only thing that might very occasionally be of concern), so why add a step to my process? I don't imagine the data adds much to the file size. I also don't think most people know it's there or how to look for it. If they do, I hope it's useful to them. I shoot more by fiddling, rather than by deliberate settings most of the time, so I'm not sure they'd learn much from my settings.

[Runmonty]

I used to hide it in Flickr due to an obsession with internet privacy, without thinking through if there were are real implications. Privacy just for privacy sake. I relaxed that more recently and changed my default settings on Flickr. After looking at it again as a result of this post , I have just realised that since I have been using Photoshop (just a couple of months) that the default for "save to web" is to strip the metadata. I will play with these settings and change this.